Jump to content

Jiggy-Z

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2978
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jiggy-Z

  1. 12 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    What about current food labeling is not truthful?  There are already in fact thousands of pages of regulations that mandate "truthful labeling" for food products.

    Read this thread about what is needed. It has been asked and answered.

     

    12 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    Is honey a bad food?  It is an "added sugar" as classified by the new nutritional labeling laws.

    It is when you have already had a 32oz OJ.

    You seem to short on suggesting any solutions that have not already been tried and failed.  What is your new solution?

    Hell, for all I know we are just a bunch of lazy fat asses and there is no solution and no matter what tax we put on sugar, no matter how many subsidies we  take away, no matter how much labeling we put on products, and no matter how much we invest in education, we will still be in the same boat, but these things must be tried due to the ultimate cost. 

  2. 52 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    The government, specifically through social engineering tax policy, shouldn't be the solution to all problems.

    But it can be part of the solution to this problem without some groundbreaking tax policy or overreach.  We know what the problem is (over consumption of an addictive and unhealthy product) , our solutions thus far have failed to even slow its rise, and the costs of prevention is minuscule compared to the costs to treat.  We have done it with tobacco and alcohol.  We have done it with occupational work safety and  environmental pollution.  Start with truthful labeling and remove the low hanging fruit subsidies to start. 

     

    1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

    More specifically, what is the specific definition of a good food?  As mentioned up thread carbs were good and fat was bad 25 years ago.  Also, from up thread there are already federal subsidies for the corn and sugar industry that bastardize incentives.  More of that isn't the answer.

    We don't even need to know what the definition of good food is, just the bad for now, and we know what that is.  Fat is still bad when you combine it with lots of sugar.

  3. 11 hours ago, elfenix said:

    also, all the responsibility so far has been personal. 

    ..and the additional labeling is still part of the personal responsibility tract and the food industry has fought it tooth and nail.

  4. On 6/29/2019 at 4:18 PM, HenryJames said:

     

    Family was out at EC a few years ago for the Granite Gripper and the day after the competition we saw a King Snek eating a rattler snek.  Both were pretty big 4' ish.

    so maybe the King Snek killed water snek.

  5. 56 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Food labels have %age DV for protein, fat, and carbs, broadly.  Sugar should not be hidden as a carb, but reported separately, I believe is his point.

    ....right, and be tied to some daily recommended allowance % even if it is is partial bullshit...so that when you drink your 32oz of OJ you will see, if you read the label, that you just had 84g of sugar which is 2 days worth of sugar (assuming rda of 42g, which is still pretty damn high-kids should be less than 15g) and not just 104g of carbs or 36% of rda carbs.

  6. 7 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    Totally this.

    late 80's early 90's was "FAT FREE!!!".  OMG, I can eat all the fat free soft serve yogurt I want...

    ...and in the interest of taste, more sugar was substituted for the fat, sigh.

    • Like 1
  7. 59 minutes ago, Lobo said:

    Tens of millions of people for decades would buy a product that clearly said it was made out of tar, they would light the product on fire, and then suck on it until all 20 were gone. 

    The product said it had tar in it.  Everybody knows what tar is, it's not some complicated poly-syllabic latin name with lots science suffixes.  And then to get the product to work, you had to light it on fire on your face.  And if you left the product in the forest accidentally, it would burn the forest down.  Tens of millions of Americans still use this product. 

    And you think some more labeling about sugar on food is gonna save us money on health care and climate change?  

    Food packaging has easy to read numbers about how much sugar the product contains, let's just be happy with that.  

    And before we save the world, watch just here in Texas---how many people put salt on food that has already salt in it.  That's gonna do just as much damage as sugar, alcohol, or drugs.  Salt isn't a spice, it's a mineral.  I saw a kid pour sugar packets into his coca-cola out of the fountain because it didn't taste as sweet as the canned ones at home.  His mother was mortified.  Didn't stop her from dumping half the salt shaker into the basket of chips that had already been salted within an inch of its life.  

    Slow food/local movement/Farm to Market is another one of those phenomenons that used to be for the bottom 20% who couldn't afford not to grow their own food and now it's for the top 20%.  The middle 60% needs it the most based on their rather generous blouse sizes.  

    Where to begin:

    True millions smoked, but because of the demonization of nicotine (and warning labels), millions quit or never started.  Sugar needs to be treated the same way.

    Sugar should be treated the same as protein and carbs and salt and all the other items on a food label.  Will it solve the problem, no.  But it will for some people.  I don't see why sugar gets a pass or that the people we hire to deal with this won't do their jobs.

    We don't have a major heath crisis because of salt.  Is it a problem, yes, but these are not the same.

    This is not about slow food or organic food.  Is about about food and the time to prepare it and educate yourself on what is good and what is not.  I get tired of the same old talking points.

  8. 17 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

    Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food were my main two. 

    He had a show on Netflix called Cooked that is really good but not near as impactful as his books. 

     

    One of the most astounding revelations mentioned in these two books was the citing of world diet studies which indicated that there are many indigenous and culturally unique diets out there, all of which work for near optimal health, except of course for the industrial food diet or Standard American Diet (SAD).

    • Like 1
  9. 12 hours ago, Incredulity said:

    Suger content is clearly labeled on all food products by federally mandated nutritional labeling.

     What more do you want?

    The content is labeled but if you look closely, there is no % calculated for part of the daily recommended allowance.  This has been a point of contention over the decades.  Calculations have put average American consumption of sugar at up to 10 times what it should be and some of those calculations do not even account for the near instantaneous conversion to sugar of simple carbohydrates in the stomach.

    With the added information on sugar labeling, the thought is we would attempt to limit its consumption.

  10. 1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

    This is the type of thinking that continues the problem in my opinion because most people don't know. Even with added sugars being added to the label, people don't know how bad sugar is for the body. People think Fruit Juice is good for you. It wasn't a coke, it was fruit juice, totally healthy right? When they are basically the same amount of sugar being injested. 

    The first pivot from the food industry is always "people need to exercise more". While true in a general sense, no amount of exercise will be able to burn off the 4000% daily sugar Americans injest. 

    But they keep using it and people believe it. 

    The Great American Workout (1991) 

    https://www.apnews.com/65d8fd231441906b236daef7552f3ba2

     

    I watched the documentary "Fed Up" last week, mostly because I had read its praises over on the Netflix recommendation board.  Also, because I kind of dabble in diet optimization and a food industry muck raking.  For me there was no new information here, but it was good to be reminded of a few things:

    Kids and their families are taking a lot of blame for their conditions, some ,if not >50% ,of which they deserve, but there is no doubt that many are the victims of bad information and past practices which are no longer sustainable due to sugar proliferation.

    You can't exercise your way out of a bad diet.

    We should all listen when Michael Pollan speaks, especially when he is interviewed.  He manages to tersely distill things and say a lot with few words, which is good given limited sound byte opportunities.  I have read most of his works, but in "Fed Up" he basically says the only way you are going to beat the cycle of sugar is by cooking with real food.

    Fed Up also hit on the continuing decades old cycle of food industry push back on sugar guidelines and labeling with personal responsibility, exercise etc.  Politically it has been a both sides issue.

    I found the documentary a little heavy on the victimization and human interest, but I think it is a great starter kit for parents and kids facing health issues-it can lead you places if you want.

     

     

    • Like 1
  11. 24 minutes ago, Tom said:

    Carter was before my time.  I was born in the 1980's. But I've heard my entire life how terrible of a president he was.  I've  believed it for decades and always thought of him as a great, kind man but a poor president.  Kind of comparable to Charlie Strong as a coach at Texas.  

    Now, after hearing the way the right talks about Obama as being just as bad for the economy and everything else while living though it and knowing it's bullshit, I'm questioning everything and am skeptical whether Carter was half as bad as the right made him out to be.  

    Some presidents get a good situation handed to them and they reap the benefits.  See Bill Clinton and Dotus.

    Carter got served a shit sandwich, economically and came off as thoughtful, deliberate, and dare I say, wimpy.

    In a way his election was rejection of the Nixon era of which Ford was a part, so there was never really any overwhelming mandate for any of his policies.

    Huge contrast with Reagan who America embraced kind of like George's mother embraced Lloyd Braun.

    • Like 1
  12. 11 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    popping wheelies, doin' donuts and shit ?

    Didn't even get a chance to do that.  I was lagging behind as we came into the store on account of my compromised condition. I saw the carts and thought why not?  I caught up with them in the vegetable area, head held high with my new sense  independent mobility.  I returned back down the isle with head held low after being injury shamed.

    I did work the limp a little harder the rest of the time just to make sure I drove the guilt home-didn't work.

    • Like 1
  13. 2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    I don't know if the grocery stores can crack down on fully mobile people using the electric carts. There doesn't appear to be any stated qualifications or rules. 

    Besides some lazy people, I think we're seeing the results of a lifetime of poor eating and exercise habits. A 5'2" woman being 250 lbs for decades has to wreck havoc with her heart and joints. Ever glance into the basket of the electric carts?  We're not taking broccoli and kale in there.  And it's a long walk from the Ho-hos and red drink sections to the pharmacy to get the diabetes medicine.  

    Personally I don't care much about people taking the handicap spots.  I prefer taking the far spots to give me an easier exit and this keeps them away from my car.

    I tried to use one of those carts at Central Market about 7 years ago.  I had a bad ankle sprain.  Wife made me walk(no crutches) after she saw me driving around in it.

  14. 17 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

    The thing is, the Laffer curve is nothing new and was nothing new when Laffer drew it on a napkin. Anyone with basic understanding of economics and fiscal policy knew that at certain point higher tax rates mean less revenue. It's like taking credit for 2+2=4. What Laffer did was weaponized the concept as a political tool to justify tax cuts at any rate. He's been proven wrong time and time again. Tax cuts, from the federal rates and probably those in every state in effect today, DO NOT pay for themselves.

    Laffer is a fake economist and a fraud. It is fitting the con man President is awarding him the highest civilian honor.

    Some clarification on this statement:  All of it is correct, except the last sentence, which needs refining. To essentially say the cuts from the current rates do no pay for themselves.

    The Laffer curve is as a concept correct stating that there is a point between 0% taxation and 100% taxation where revenue is optimized.  The tax cut crowd is selling the argument that  rates are too high and that cutting them will optimize revenue.  The devil is in the details as there can be debate about not only where we are on the curve but what the shape of the curve is and which of the tax rates( personal, corporate, capital gains, estate) would best be suited to optimize revenue.

    In the case of states, each one would have its own unique curve.

    For the tax cutters it is an easy sell, because when taxes are cut, it does stimulate the economy almost immediately and proponents can point to that.  However, based on the evidence it has thus far in recent American History, shown that the cuts have not been adequately offset by taxation of the stimulated economy.

    Case in point on the Trump tax cut and its effect on stock price.  If a major component of stock price is its present value of future cash flows, then a reduction in the corporate tax from 35% to 21% would automatically create a higher stock price.  There is no Trump business magic, the market's rise has been a continuation of an existing trend and a tax cut.

     

  15. 16 hours ago, Jiggy-Z said:

    Oh please, these are not concentration camps.. They are encampments which densely populate or distill, if you will, a certain demographic of immigrant for the purpose of indefinite detainment until the ultimate disposal of their  cases.

    Oh please, these are not concentration camps.. They are encampments which densely populate or distill, if you will, a certain demographic of immigrant for the purpose of indefinite detainment until the final solution can be implemented in their  cases.

    Just a little editing.

  16. 5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    "We're not literally implementing an exact copy of Auschwitz!" is not a good defense but it says a lot that Republicans think it is.

    Oh please, these are not concentration camps.. They are encampments which densely populate or distill, if you will, a certain demographic of immigrant for the purpose of indefinite detainment until the ultimate disposal of their  cases.

    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...